AA Edit | Time To Revisit Anti-Graft Law

The Supreme Court’s split verdict on the constitutional validity of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018, gives Parliament an opportunity to correct its own action of practically killing the anti-graft law and restore its effectiveness in fighting governmental corruption in this country.

The PCA in its original form invested in the investigation agency the power to register a crime and launch an investigation against a public servant; the agency needed to get the government’s approval only before filing a chargesheet. The 2018 amendment and the introduction of Section 17A turned the very logic of this piece of legislation on its head by stripping the agency of this critical power — as the law stands today, it can launch an investigation only after it gets the approval of the government.

Justice B.V. Nagarathna said the law is unconstitutional and needs to be struck down saying requirement of prior sanction by the government is contrary to its purpose as it forecloses inquiry and protects the corrupt. She opined that there should have been an independent body which is not controlled by the government to consider a case for grant of prior approval to conduct an inquiry/enquiry/investigation by a police officer. Meanwhile, despite endorsing the constitutionality of the Act saying it gave honest public servants a basic assurance that decisions taken by them will not be subjected to frivolous complaints, Justice K.V. Viswanathan called for an independent authority, such as the Lokpal or the Lokayukta, to give the go-ahead to launch an investigation.

The meeting point of the opinions of the two judgments is that the government should not be the authority to sanction an investigation into an allegation of corruption against a public servant; it should be obtained from an independent agency. Such an independent authority will offer protection to bona fide actions against frivolous investigations as well.

Now, the court may have resorted to the existing provisions in the law that allows a judicial scrutiny before an investigation is launched, but it has chosen not to. Instead of letting the Supreme Court decide the matter, the government may expunge/amend the villainous section to reinstitute an independent mechanism and make the law powerful again.